Minnesota Sports Forum

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
You're kind of proving my point I posted early.

People are quick to jump on Q's analysis of LaVine or whatever because the kid has shown some good improvements over the past few weeks as the team loses almost every game.

But when he was the most accurate one on the board in a more macro sense at predicting how far this team still was away from being legit... it's all met with sarcasm, disclaimers and other excuses. It's having the cake and eating it too situation.

"Q is wrong about this. LOL at him. Yeah, he was pretty astute about that other stuff, but it doesn't matter because I say so."

I don't think it's the same thing at all. For whatever reason, some people on here seem to want to jump on players very early and point out all their faults. This was done to Wiggins early in the year and, LaVine, Payne and Dieng quite a bit through out the season. Guys pointing out the faults often approach it from the angle of some sort of detailed analysis or their perceived ability to assess talent. So, if that player (like Wiggins) turns out to be pretty good after all, then the people who consistently posted how they didn't think they would be very good sort of lose credibility in their ability to evaluate a player. Or at minimum, their rush to judgement using small sample sizes.

Predicting the # of wins for this year on the other hand was primarily just guessing a number for most of us based on the actual roster to start the year. That roster only played a handful of games together. So aren't all of our predictions were pretty much invalid due to the fact it was a different team than when the original predictions were made? I mean, unless someone specifically predicted guys like Adrien Payne and Lorenzo Brown would play more games than Pek & Rubio etc. and used that as a basis of their prediction.

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

TheGrey08 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Q predicted the Wolves would be 25 - 57. I predicted 26 - 56.

Seems like we were right. (although still too optimistic) But with how Cool dictates we can and cannot judge who's right (for him it's instantaneous... for us it's (xx months/years), I guess I have to wait for further proof that I might just know what I'm talking about more often than not...

So be it. But playing the board's resident asshole doesn't have to be his gimmick entirely. Others can play that role too when they grow tired of a 50+ year old man acting like a spoiled teenybopper.

To be fair not a single person guessed we'd have half the team down with injuries for a big chunk of the year, especially the top 3 players going into the year. Because of those injuries I put absolutely 0 stock into those guesses including my own and simply throw that whole thing out.

Exactly, Grey. I find it humorous that we are talking about who was most correct on predicting wins, when the "winners" were more than 50% off in their prediction! Claiming the title this year is kind of like bragging about being the tallest midget in the room (can we still say midget?).

The Wolves' games lost to injury this season were so ridiculously beyond any other team, this year's contest has no validity whatsoever.

Always a disclaimer.
By the way, the Rockets lost only 22 or so fewer games to injury... Toronto is #3. Miami is #4. OKC is #6. Indy is #7.

Granted, every team has different types of guys who miss games. Losing Chase Budinger isn't the same as losing Ricky Rubio. But other teams weren't built on a proverbial house of cards that if one key guy was out... trouble was looming. That's one of the reasons why some guys predicted a bad season for the Wolves.

Too much had to go just right for this team to be competitive. With average injuries, they became a bad team. With a ton of injuries... they become a terrible team. We know that. But it was pretty obvious this team lacked the depth to withstand much turmoil at all.

I understand that having Harden makes a difference for Houston. He might win the MVP. But I think there's a bigger issue at play here. Houston knows who it is... and how they're going to play. Thus, when a guy gets hurt, they aren't seeking a new style or a new way to fit them in or trying to change on the fly. They've embraced their identity (for better or worse) and continue to thrive. I've said all year that I wished Flip was working on building an identity of some sort here. I don't think he really has and that's been disappointing.

Which of those teams you mentioned subbed in 7+ first and second year players when their injuries occurred? The answer is none of them. You can't establish an identity when half your team is still learning how to play in the league at a basic level, let alone within a specific system in a specific way. All of those teams had multiple veterans to fall back on. We had Mo and Thad who aren't on the team anymore which has left us with only Martin since the latest round of the Rubio/Pek injury cycle. 1 veteran is not enough. To compare how good they have been to us with similar injuries is a joke because the players each team had available after the injuries has us being in the worst position by a landslide.

That's sorta the point though, right? The house of cards analogy I used. The team was pretty thin with a bunch of young guys and vets who were still trying to prove their own worth.

It just wasn't a team capable of winning much if injuries hit.

sjm34 wrote:Abe, I can't believe you are calling out other posters for disclaimers. That's pretty much your MO on this board isn't it? :)

I don't know.

I try not to use disclaimers to prove others' takes are inaccurate. In fact, I try to use them, often in [note] form, to add context and to at least acknowledge the other side of the coin. I like to think I'm able to add some context sometimes to my posts or to a topic in general, and it doesn't come off as excuse making... because that's definitely not the intent.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

TheGrey08 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Q predicted the Wolves would be 25 - 57. I predicted 26 - 56.

Seems like we were right. (although still too optimistic) But with how Cool dictates we can and cannot judge who's right (for him it's instantaneous... for us it's (xx months/years), I guess I have to wait for further proof that I might just know what I'm talking about more often than not...

So be it. But playing the board's resident asshole doesn't have to be his gimmick entirely. Others can play that role too when they grow tired of a 50+ year old man acting like a spoiled teenybopper.

To be fair not a single person guessed we'd have half the team down with injuries for a big chunk of the year, especially the top 3 players going into the year. Because of those injuries I put absolutely 0 stock into those guesses including my own and simply throw that whole thing out.

Exactly, Grey. I find it humorous that we are talking about who was most correct on predicting wins, when the "winners" were more than 50% off in their prediction! Claiming the title this year is kind of like bragging about being the tallest midget in the room (can we still say midget?).

The Wolves' games lost to injury this season were so ridiculously beyond any other team, this year's contest has no validity whatsoever.

Always a disclaimer.
By the way, the Rockets lost only 22 or so fewer games to injury... Toronto is #3. Miami is #4. OKC is #6. Indy is #7.

Granted, every team has different types of guys who miss games. Losing Chase Budinger isn't the same as losing Ricky Rubio. But other teams weren't built on a proverbial house of cards that if one key guy was out... trouble was looming. That's one of the reasons why some guys predicted a bad season for the Wolves.

Too much had to go just right for this team to be competitive. With average injuries, they became a bad team. With a ton of injuries... they become a terrible team. We know that. But it was pretty obvious this team lacked the depth to withstand much turmoil at all.

I understand that having Harden makes a difference for Houston. He might win the MVP. But I think there's a bigger issue at play here. Houston knows who it is... and how they're going to play. Thus, when a guy gets hurt, they aren't seeking a new style or a new way to fit them in or trying to change on the fly. They've embraced their identity (for better or worse) and continue to thrive. I've said all year that I wished Flip was working on building an identity of some sort here. I don't think he really has and that's been disappointing.

Which of those teams you mentioned subbed in 7+ first and second year players when their injuries occurred? The answer is none of them. You can't establish an identity when half your team is still learning how to play in the league at a basic level, let alone within a specific system in a specific way. All of those teams had multiple veterans to fall back on. We had Mo and Thad who aren't on the team anymore which has left us with only Martin since the latest round of the Rubio/Pek injury cycle. 1 veteran is not enough. To compare how good they have been to us with similar injuries is a joke because the players each team had available after the injuries has us being in the worst position by a landslide.

That's sorta the point though, right? The house of cards analogy I used. The team was pretty thin with a bunch of young guys and vets who were still trying to prove their own worth.

It just wasn't a team capable of winning much if injuries hit.

There's no such thing as a rebuilding team with enough veteran depth to overcome injuries to your 3 best players. None of the teams you mentioned are rebuilding so there is no reason for them to have a bunch of young players even on the team like we do. Are you suggesting we should have kept guys like Thad, Mo and Corey just to better be able to compete during a rebuilding year? We're just in a completely different phase of team building than them so they just shouldn't be comparisons to us as to how we handled injuries versus them. Your no excuses attitude just doesn't work with our current team because we literally have every excuse this year as to why we are this bad. Last year was a no excuses year, but this year, that attitude doesn't fly with me as an ok criticism of this team. It's certainly not a fair criticism given the actual obstacles we have had to overcome before the year and during the year. It's not like Love was gone right when free agency hit. That deal was made right before the season started when Flip had no time or opportunity to fill in the new holes on the roster that were created. I don't agree with you that there are no excuses for us to be this bad.

khans... No. I'm not criticizing the team for not meeting expectations or anything. I think there's a disconnect somewhere. I thought they were bad at the beginning of the season. With injuries, it made them terrible. It happens. You're right it's not like last season when expectations were much higher.

This is about q getting ripped for a few good weeks of LaVine improvement but not getting credit for realizing the Wolves were a very thin team and bottoming out was more of a probability than everything going perfectly and them being competitively mediocre or average like so many others predicted.

He said they'd be lousier than everybody else here prior to the season. Some of his concerns were proven accurate. The team just didn't have the talent (and too much youth) to overcome hurdles. And once a team goes bad, they get rid of parts. That's all part of the process. He should get credit for his prediction... especially in the wake of getting shat on for having the audacity to criticize LaVine.

Well, I guess it's good to know people read my posts if it creates this much churn in a thread! A few thoughts:

- Like a lot of you, I watch nearly every game. I react to what I see and criticize players who aren't playing well. And yup, I do it repeatedly when they repeatedly suck. If one of those players happens to be your favorites, just ignore my post and move on. Hell, I have criticized some of MY favorites, like Gorgui Dieng, a guy I loved last season. I'm an equal-opportunity criticizer-er.

- Rookies aren't immune to criticism in my opinion. There is no rule of thumb that says a rookie must suck right away. Many don't suck. Many do suck. Either way, I'm not changing my approach. If someone puts up a shitty performance, I call it that.

- Criticizing a player for their recent performances and predicting their future performances/value to the franchise are two different things.

- Schedenfreude, profane insults, and "gotcha" posts are lame, especially since it appears that this forum is mostly populated by folks quite a bit on in years (i.e. 40+, 50+, and may be even 60+ in some cases). Not that it's excusable at any age, but I do find it pretty silly when middle-aged folks feel the need to resort to these tactics. It's tough to reconcile their real-life age and life experience with their statements.

- (and by the way, I think ALL posters are respectful most of the time. So on a relative basis, it's a good place to be versus other sites).

This board isn't the same cordial place it used to be. I agree with Q that it is still better than most, but we've lost something along the way. The biggest reason in my opinion is that Lip posts much more infrequently than he used to. That may sound strange, but I'm serious. In the heyday of the ESPN board Lip set the table and everyone seemed to follow suit. It's not that he was always the best poster with the most accurate takes, but he treated (and still does) EVERYBODY with respect. Back when he was posting a lot, this influence permeated the board and became part of the fiber of the group.

In the last 2-3 years we've added a lot of new blood. Mostly really good posters, but some who brought the argumentative style from other boards to this venue. I know it's had an effect on me, and altered the way I post.

Going forward I'm going to make a concerted effort to get back to the Lipolian dynamic that we enjoyed for many years. The key being respect for other posters and their opinions and making opposing viewpoints in a mature manner.

I'm still going to call someone out if they make repetitive arguments that turn out to be off base. I'm just going to try to do it in a more tactful manner.

quote=@6593430]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Q predicted the Wolves would be 25 - 57. I predicted 26 - 56.

Seems like we were right. (although still too optimistic) But with how Cool dictates we can and cannot judge who's right (for him it's instantaneous... for us it's (xx months/years), I guess I have to wait for further proof that I might just know what I'm talking about more often than not...

So be it. But playing the board's resident asshole doesn't have to be his gimmick entirely. Others can play that role too when they grow tired of a 50+ year old man acting like a spoiled teenybopper.

One thing I can say for sure, is I've never called anyone an asshole. But name calling does seem to fit your character.

Seems fitting? Please link to any other time I've called somebody here anything close to an asshole... and I'll match it with literally dozens of insults you've lobbed at numerous posters here who dare think differently than you.

You go first. I'll match you tenfold... at least.

I didn't say you've done it many times, but you DID just say it. If I've ever insulted someone with petty name calling (it's been rare) I've owned up and apologized for it.

If you want a fight big boy, I'm ready for it. It would be a pleasure to match wits with you.